JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Personal or impersonal? : an analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger's perspectives on the personhood of the demonic

MacDonald, Scott Douglas (2013-03)

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject.
Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker.
Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect the biblical material.
Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply attempt to reflect the biblical material.
But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age, the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times, except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged,and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric expressions of the topic.
As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts.
Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities.